Geir Isene: To be even more Clear
- Thread starter Kha Khan
- Start date
If truth is the exact time, place form and event, then God is a lie because it's not located. If God is located in everything existing in the universe, then all is true, including all lies.
The whole axiom is a fail like all definite statements.
(to be continued...)
Well, yeah, but...
When we listen to the news we want to know the Truth (in the form of: exact time, place, form and event) rather than listen to some expert's (or reporter's) *considerations* about what happened.
When we get information from someone, we are more interested in facts (that help us build the whole picture ourselves, thus REFLECT, PERCIEVE, VIEW... for ourselves) rather than hear opinions and attitudes (considerations) from others. Isn't it so?
I still maintain that *Truth is exact reflection and perception of facts* rather than "exact considerations" (of/about facts).
"Exact considerations" is what keeps Scios buying CoS's PR stories as "Truths"
I understand what you're saying and I can agree with it from that viewpoint but I think you know we are talking of different truths. Objective truths, emotional truths, subjective truths, logical truths, they are all different forms and manifestations of truth. I was talking about The Truth (as falible as that can be).
Take for example the factual truths: it is true that I went to sleep last night but I cannot tell you at exactly what time it happened or the exact form it took place. Does that make it less true? According to LRH, it does. Absolute precision was one of his obsessions but still he and all the scientologists cannot be precise as a machine, whether it's about stating the truth of applying scn procedures. Although it is true that I went to sleep last night, can it be considered A Truth? These are different things. I was not being that factual. What is truer (?), the appearence of something, or what motivates it to appear that way or caused it to be in the first place? Once again, these are different things, although they are connected.
Moreover, if the Scn Axioms were created to clearly state spiritual "realities", how can he boil the truth down to mundane (wordly, not "wrong") specificities, when he is talking of the spirit and its evolution in the universe and the tools it uses for creation, etc? It seems he mixes different realms of reality and perception.
We are talking of axioms. If he holds the superior spiritual knowledge, how can this one turn out to be a bunch of mechanical rules?
Exact perception? What is that? Can a perception be absolutely pure and clean? Is it suppose to be like that at all? If our brains and senses have already proved to deceive us on a constant basis, what is Truth really?
It's so relative. I was absolutely relativizing it. If you only want to hear people talking of facts, where is art? Can any relationship survive based only in facts? Where are the colors of emotions and the richness, variety and possible consequent growth from the sharing of these? Facts are as important as people's feelings and interpretations of them and of course I'm not talking of journalistic information. Are you sure all the facts presented there are true? How do you know the way they are set up don't form your view of the world? When you hear the news, don't you care about a mother's feelings after her son being murdered? Is this reaction less true? If only facts matter why would we change the world? How would you be motivated to better anything if it didn't make you feel something subjective, that you cannot precise in space and time?
I forgot to say something:
Exact place, time, form and event is vital in COURT, to judge people. Still there is space from plenty of lies, even when there is an agreement concerning what is true. We can see it by the ammount of criminals that escape innocent.
In journalism is as vital although it is more relative and harder to do, as it is much harder to track the investigations, the sources and all that.
What I want to say is that truth is relative. It changes according to the contexts.
But I think it is vital to know the facts in court, to make justice, because this is the system we have right now. But it is very, very falible.
Exact place, time, form and event is vital in COURT, to judge people. Still there is space from plenty of lies, even when there is an agreement concerning what is true. We can see it by the ammount of criminals that escape innocent.
In journalism is as vital although it is more relative and harder to do, as it is much harder to track the investigations, the sources and all that.
What I want to say is that truth is relative. It changes according to the contexts.
But I think it is vital to know the facts in court, to make justice, because this is the system we have right now. But it is very, very falible.
Similar threads
